DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 were rejected in the Office Action from 02/04/2025.
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 4.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application, of claims 5-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-5 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues that Palmore teaches away from the claimed subject matter because paragraph [0013] discloses that certain cathode materials exhibit poor electrochemical properties when used in Na-ion batteries. However, this argument is not persuasive because Palmore does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of such materials in mixed alkali-metal battery systems. Rather, Palmore expressly teaches that the same materials exhibit relatively high capacity and good cycling performance in Li-ion batteries. Thus, Palmore merely describes differing performance characteristics under different operating systems, rather than teaching away from their use altogether.
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Chiang is likewise unpersuasive. Chiang is not limited exclusively to Na-ion battery systems. As evidenced by paragraphs [0042]-[0044], Chiang expressly contemplates mixed alkali-metal systems including Li, Na, and/or K combinations within electroactive alloy materials and electrodes. For example, Chiang discloses embodiments in which solid and liquid alloy phases comprise combinations of Li and Na, Li and K, or Na and K. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Chiang as directed broadly to mixed alkali-metal electrochemical systems rather than solely Na-ion batteries.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Palmore’s disclosed phosphate cathode materials into Chiang’s mixed alkali-metal battery system in order to obtain predictable electrochemical properties and battery performance characteristics. The combination merely involves the use of known electrode materials for their known purpose within a known alkali-metal battery system.
Applicant additionally argues that the claimed invention achieves “two different voltage platforms” and different charging/discharging modes. However, the alleged voltage behavior appears to be an inherent electrochemical property resulting from the combination of known materials and does not constitute evidence of nonobviousness absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (maintained)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et. al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0403234), and further in view of Palmore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108905).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches a dual-cation metal battery (i.e., electrochemical device) (100) (paragraph [0072]) (see figure 1) comprising:
a positive electrode (i.e., second electrode) (106) (paragraph [0072], [0079]) comprising a positive electrode material (paragraph [007]);
a negative electrode (i.e., first electrode) (102) comprising a metal mixture consisting of lithium metal and sodium metal (i.e., Li, Na and/or K) (paragraph [0038], [0042], [0051]), wherein an amount of Li is greater than or equal to 1 mol% (paragraph [0048]) and an amount of Na is greater than or equal to 1mol% which overlaps the claimed weight ratio (paragraph [0049]) (see calculation example below) (Note: the cited sections also teach that “other ranges greater than and less than those noted and combinations are also possible” (paragraphs [0048]-[0051]));
an electrolyte solution (i.e., liquid phase) (paragraph [0038], [0042]-[0043], [0046]), disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a separator (i.e., solid electrolyte) (104) (paragraph [0072]) disposed in the electrolyte solution (i.e., as shown in figures 2-3, liquid phase 130 would be in contact with the electrolyte 140 and in between the electrodes solid phases 120) (paragraph [0072], [0076], wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are separated from each other by the separator (paragraph [0072]).
Chiang does not teach the positive electrode selected from the group consisting of heterosite (FePO4), lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) and LixNa1-xFePO4, wherein 0<x<1.
Palmore, directed to cathode materials (paragraph [0002]), teaches compositions for cathode materials such as Li0.47Na0.2FePO4 are known and have been investigated to exhibit high capacity and good cycling performance (paragraph [0013], [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include a cathode material such as Li0.47Na0.2FePO4 as taught by Palmore in order to increase capacity and good cycling performance.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
A
t
o
m
i
c
W
e
i
g
h
t
s
:
L
i
=
6.94
g
m
o
l
;
N
a
=
22.99
g
m
o
l
m
o
l
e
s
L
i
=
1
6.94
=
0.144
;
m
o
l
e
s
N
a
=
3
22.99
=
0.130
→
t
o
t
a
l
m
o
l
e
s
=
0.144
+
0.130
=
0.274
L
i
m
o
l
%
=
0.144
0.274
x
100
=
52.6
%
x
6.94
g
m
o
l
=
365.0
g
N
a
m
o
l
%
=
0.130
0.274
x
100
=
47.4
%
x
22.99
g
m
o
l
=
1089.3
g
∴
365
g
L
i
:
1089.3
g
N
a
≈
w
e
i
g
h
t
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
1
:
3
Note: 52.6 mol% of Li and 47.4 mol% of Na both fall within the range taught in the prior art.
It is noted that Chiang differ in the exact same ratio as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ratio of Chiang overlaps the instant claimed ratio and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 2-5, Chiang, as modified by Palmore, teaches the battery as described above in claim 1 to include the cathode material of Li0.47Na0.2FePO4. The claims recite charging and discharging conditions of the claimed battery. The claims are considered product-by-process claims, and the recited charging and discharging steps do not impart any structural or functional distinction to the claimed battery relative to the product. As such, the patentability of the claims is based on the claimed battery itself. Nonetheless, Chiang teaches charging and discharging the battery (paragraph [0065]) in order to transfer ions between the anode and the cathode (paragraph [0044]) (same as the claimed invention – paragraph [0035] of the instant specification). As such, it would have been obvious to apply such conventional charging and discharging protocols or modes to the battery of Chiang in order to achieve predictable results (i.e., transfer ions between the anode and the cathode).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thackery et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0029161). Thackery teaches LiFePO4 is a well-known cathode product for batteries (paragraph [0004).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights